PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Buffed up Eldritch Knight



LeonBH
2017-03-09, 12:59 AM
Hi all. So I'm not too crazy about War Magic for the Eldritch Knight. It sees good use with SCAG cantrips from level 7 through 10, but it also conflicts with Extra Attack. This isn't a problem as much as it feels like an itch, because you have to choose between two class features that don't mesh well.

Moreover, at level 11 and assuming melee combat, it becomes better to use Extra Attack and makes War Magic obsolete. Yes it will have some uses, but for the most part, I've seen War Magic be ignored a lot (effective attack builds like Polearm Master and Extra Attack really hurt War Magic, too).

With that in mind, I'd like to homebrew something reasonable that scratches this itch. Here's the goals I'm trying to hit:


Provide a real choice between Extra Attack and War Magic. By "real choice" I mean give them an interesting dilemma every round, wherein there is no obvious answer as to which feature is best to use in that level and situation. As it is now, with SCAG, and for most melee combats, War Magic is useful for EK from levels 7-10 (provided they don't use their bonus action for something else), Extra Attack is best at levels 11+

Empower the EK's capstone. It feels a bit "too little, too late" because at 18th level, many other classes are pretty much OP anyway. This gives incentives for multiclassing out of Fighter and into something else before level 18. It's probably not a real concern as many campaigns don't last that long anyway, but just the design aspect of it feels unsatisfying.


And so, here are my updates. Please let me know if I've broken anything.


War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level, you may cast Haste without expending a spell slot. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you finish a short or long rest.

GalacticAxekick
2017-03-09, 01:11 AM
Your War Magic fix seems fair. Your Improved War Magic fix, less so. I'd prefer a feature that contends with my Extra Attack than one obviously stronger than it, but limited per rest.

War Magic: Starting at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Improved War Magic:Starting at 18th level, you may make melee spell attacks as a bonus action when you make a melee weapon attack, and you may make ranged spell attacks as a bonus action when you make ranged weapon attacks.

Even as I write this, I have concerns with damage output. This IWM is almost certainly flawed. But it's more in the spirit of the feature, I think: providing a way for the Fighter to regularly integrate martial and arcane combat.

LeonBH
2017-03-09, 02:15 AM
I see what you mean. My IWM was meant to synergize with War Magic, and essentially concedes that most EKs will have Haste put up in big fights anyway and this is only to help. But, it does seem more in line with the flavor if it merged casting and sword fighting.

Your IWM seems vague though, but I do get what you mean. "You may cast a spell with a melee spell attack as a bonus action if you make a melee weapon attack as your action" and the same thing for ranged. In terms of damage, assuming an 18th level EK with Dex/Str 20, Int 20 and Haste put up:

Range:
Attack Action (Extra Attack): 3 arrows at 1d10+5 (Longbow)
Attack Action (Haste Action): 1 arrow at 1d10+5 (Longbow)
Cast A Spell Action (Bonus Action): 3 bolts at 2d6 (Scorching Ray cast at 2nd level)

Scorching Ray is the highest damaging spell that has a ranged attack. This averages to 63 damage, with a standard dev of 7.11 (Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/af70)). With the Archery Fighting Style, add a flat +8 to average damage.

Melee:
Attack Action (Extra Attack): 3 swings at 2d6+5 (Greatsword)
Attack Action (Haste Action): 1 swing at 2d6+5 (Greatsword)
Cast A Spell Action (Bonus Action): 1 swing at 2d6+5+4d8 (GFB)

This is 78 damage on average with StdDev 7.08 (Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/af71)). With Great Weapon Fighting, add around +10 to average damage.

Considering a Paladin can nova for >100 damage in a turn, and Wizards have access to Meteor Swarm for 140 damage on average, this seems fair to me.

GalacticAxekick
2017-03-09, 03:28 AM
That seems about balanced (though with Action Surge, it might get iffy)! My concern was more that it's limited per rest and comes with a lot of additional thematic/mechanical baggage (such as the extra speed and potential dashing, dodging, disengaging): that it moves away from what War Magic was intended to do.

If you're content with that, though, and if your table is, by all means, run with it!

clash
2017-03-09, 09:26 AM
Even without gfb in play the ek war magic actually does pretty well as is. With gfb it is still well worth it after level 11.

Ranged

Level 7
2 attacks with longbow
(1d8 + 5) * 2 ~ 18
Cantrip and attack using firebolt as an example and weaker cantrips can apply effects so it balances out
2d10 + 1d8 + 5 ~ 20.5

Level 11
3 attacks with longbow
(1d8 + 5) * 3 ~ 27
Cantrip and attack using firebolt
3d10 + 1d8 + 5 ~ 26

Melee

Level 7
2 attacks with Greatsword
(2d6 + 5) * 2 ~ 24
Cantrip and attack using firebolt as an example and weaker cantrips can apply effects so it balances out
2d10 + 2d6 + 5 ~ 23
Cantrip and attack with gfb
(2d6 + 5) * 2 + 1d8 ~ 28.5 + 9.5 second target damage

Level 11
3 attacks with Greatsword
(2d6 + 5) * 3 ~ 36
Cantrip and attack using firebolt
3d10 + 2d6 + 5 ~ 28.5
Cantrip and attack with gfb
(2d6 + 5) * 2 + 2d8 ~ 33 + 13 second target damage

so without gfb it falls behind a bit but offers more utility
Of course the trick at level 11 is that you also have Eldritch strike which can apply to cantrips with saves allowing you to attack as a bonus action then target them with a cantrip with disadvantage on their save. This increases your chances of dealing the cantrip damage.

LeonBH
2017-03-09, 10:45 AM
I'm confused. When you say War Magic does well "as is", you mean in its current form in the PHB, it's already good? Because you showed me calculations for the homebrew rules GalacticAxekick suggested at level 18...

The current form of War Magic is when you cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action. This means you can cast Firebolt, and then one longbow attack. Or you can cast GFB, and then one greatsword attack.

clash
2017-03-09, 10:55 AM
Well I didnt do any math for level 18 but I assume you meant level 11. I see where the confusion comes from. With gfb you get 1 melee attack + extra damage so my calculations show that in total you get 1 bonus action melee attack + 1 melee attack as part of gfb + gfb extra damage with gfb second target damage being added in after the fact to allow for comparing just single target damage. For firebolt I only consider 1 weapon attack

LeonBH
2017-03-09, 11:03 AM
Ah, I understand what you mean now. The numbers were presented in a confusing way. But, I get you.

Like I said, it isn't a problem so much as it is an itch. Why do you have to choose between War Magic (with GFB) and Extra Attack? Yes they balance out in a vacuum. But consider a Gish who has dipped into Warlock for Hex (or used Magic Initiate), and has Polearm Master wielding a glaive.

With Extra Attack, they can do two normal glaive attacks and a bonus action strike with the rear end of the weapon. Assuming 20 Str, so at level 7:
(1d10+5+1d6) + (1d10+5+1d6) + (1d4+5+1d6) = 39 damage

Now with GFB, you get the one Glaive attack and then a regular attack:
(1d10+5+1d6+1d8)+(1d10+5+1d6) = 32.5 damage

If we were pre-SCAG, that damage drops. Let's use Firebolt:
(1d10+5+1d6)+(2d10+1d6) = 28.5 damage

Now beef it up to level 11 for the EK, and he has 3 attacks:
(1d10+5+1d6) + (1d10+5+1d6) + (1d10+5+1d6) + (1d4+5+1d6) = 53 damage

With GFB, again:
(1d10+5+1d6+2d8)+(1d10+5+1d6) = 37 damage

And with Firebolt:
(1d10+5+1d6)+(3d10+1d6) = 34 damage

Now add to the mix magic weapons, which Extra Attack gets more benefits from, as well as party buffs such as Enlarge/Reduce, and the disparity in damage increases even more. If they somehow acquire Great Weapon Master as well, then War Magic does not stand a chance in terms of damage output.

Again, this isn't a problem with balance, but is rather an itch that stems from how Extra Attack and War Magic not playing well with each other, putting the EK at a disadvantage. Yes, each one is equivalent to the other somewhat -- but why does he always have to choose between one or the other, and the choice is predetermined by level (and Extra Attack wins most of the time, anyway)?

Gr7mm Bobb
2017-03-09, 02:34 PM
My other solution to the EK's dilemma was allowing them to replace a weapon attack roll from the attack action with a Cantrip. Did some other changes to the class to prevent some accidental synergies, but the goal was to let them beat face and reserve their bonus action, without super charing them with a cantrip + full attack.

Details migh be a sec, but yes, I can find my notes somewheres.

LeonBH
2017-03-09, 03:05 PM
How did you go about doing this Gr7mm Bobb? Care to share here?

Gr7mm Bobb
2017-03-10, 09:18 AM
ok so it was a simple shift, but it definitely upped the power of the EK to hit higher burst damage, allow with caution.

War Magic
Starting at 7th level when you use the attack action, you may cast a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action in place of one of your attacks once per attack action. Additionally if you use your action to cast a spell, you can make a weapon attack as a bonus action.

The only real issue that i had with the 10th level feature was that it was just a little too late.

Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level once per turn when you use the Attack action, you may cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action in place of two of your attacks.

The intent was to help the preservation of the bonus action, while not completely loosing the reigns. The main reason i wanted to free up the bonus action was so that a twf EK can be just as valid as the sword+board and gwf. By 20th level the EK to feel like an actual fighter archetype.

The side effect of the above changes achieved my intended results as well as bringing up the EK to what felt like a comfortable level for an archetype that is a self-proclaimed mage-knight.

Sorry about the super late response.

Wryte
2017-03-10, 11:33 AM
ok so it was a simple shift, but it definitely upped the power of the EK to hit higher burst damage, allow with caution.

War Magic
Starting at 7th level when you use the attack action, you may cast a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action in place of one of your attacks. Additionally if you use your action to cast a spell, you can make a weapon attack as a bonus action.

Sounds good.


Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level when you use the Attack action, you may cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action in place of two of your attacks.

This one, I have a little issue with. Two attacks for one spell seems a little one-size-fits-all, when it really isn't, when we have multiple levels of spells in the EK's arsenal. 2 attacks for a 1st level spell seems like a bad trade off, while 2 for a 4th level seems too loose. I would suggest:

Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level when you use the Attack action, you may cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action in place of a number of attacks equal to the level of the spell slot.

Thus, a 1st level spell slot uses 1 attack, still allowing for 3 more, a 2nd level spell uses 2 attacks, etc, which works out nicely since EKs cap out with 4 total attacks and 4th level spell slots.

Gr7mm Bobb
2017-03-10, 11:57 AM
Hadn't thought of it that way, not a bad idea. Curious to what the OP says.

With what you have suggested it works out pretty well with my previously mentioned 7th level feature's 2nd sentence. So using a 4th level slot does let you still weapon attack with your bonus action.

LeonBH
2017-03-11, 05:32 AM
Gr7mm Bobb, I thought about this a little more, and I think War Magic in this form has a vague enough wording that it can be argued it allows 4 Eldritch Blasts + Agonizing Blast if the EK dips in 2 levels of Warlock. That is a very severe power upgrade.

Wryte, Improved War Magic in that form will allow Regular Attack + Hold Person (Disadvantage on save) + 2x GFB... which may be acceptable for that level, but it is also very powerful even without magic items. It comes at level 18 anyway, and it's not like the party Wizard buffing you with Haste won't create somewhat the same effect.

I guess, all in all, I feel weird about allowing a spell to be cast which takes the place of an attack using Extra Attack. From a mechanical standpoint, usually that's grappling or shoving that can replace one of those, which are non-damaging attacks; whereas a faster spellcasting action always turns 1 action into a bonus action. This is because of the Quicken Metamagic that Sorcerers get. Letting a class cast in this way feels like a nerf to the Sorcerers, as well as bypasses the restriction on bonus action spellcasting.

Also, when you factor in Action Surge, Wryte's suggestion raises strange questions. For example, when you have 4 attacks per Attack action, and you use Action Surge, then when you cast a 3rd level spell, do you have to use the 4th attack to make an attack, or can you "merge" that with the other 4 Action Surge attacks?

Here's a version I came up with to replace their 18th level ability. It's just a straight up improvement on the published IWM.


Improved War Magic
When you use your action to cast a spell, you may use your bonus action to either make two weapon attacks or cast a single spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.

The above is just either a straight up upgrade (make 2 weapon attacks instead of just 1), or break the bonus action spellcasting restriction by allowing a spell to be cast as an action and another one as a bonus action, but in a more comfortable way. But, I'm not sure on the appeal of this.

Finally, Gr7mm Bobb, I think if we aim to save a bonus action for a TWF, in the fluff we can still do it. If the spell that was cast was GFB or BB, they would still be able to make a weapon attack as a bonus action anyway, using the version of War Magic that I posted initially. This means you could thematically have them attack with their main weapon for their action, and have them hit with their off-hand attack as their bonus action. Though, this does make their TWF Fighting Style rather useless, and so it may be unsatisfying for that purpose. I think that the TWF style is really mechanically penalized in this edition though.

Wryte
2017-03-11, 06:00 AM
There's a very easy fix to my version of IWM to all your concerns. Just specify that you can only substitute one spell for extra attack(s) per Attack action.

No chaining GFB; you get one per Attack action.

Action Surge and/or Haste? You get one spell per Attack action, so Haste and Action Surge can each net you one more, but you don't get to combine their extra attack totals toward your spell slots.

LeonBH
2017-03-11, 06:08 AM
I know that "fixes" it, but not really. It feels unsatisfying that way though, because how do you use the narrative to explain the mechanics of it? Why can't you use your last 2 attacks to cast the spell you want, when you used your first 2 attacks to make the same?

Besides, I feel it still nerfs the Sorcerer. What I said here:


I guess, all in all, I feel weird about allowing a spell to be cast which takes the place of an attack using Extra Attack. From a mechanical standpoint, usually that's grappling or shoving that can replace one of those, which are non-damaging attacks; whereas a faster spellcasting action always turns 1 action into a bonus action. This is because of the Quicken Metamagic that Sorcerers get. Letting a class cast in this way feels like a nerf to the Sorcerers, as well as bypasses the restriction on bonus action spellcasting.

All that above still applies as legitimate design concerns.

Wryte
2017-03-11, 06:33 AM
I really don't think sorcerers need to worry about a feature that only becomes available at level 18 and is merely similar while also being less flexible than a thing they can do from level 3. Quickened Spell is still much more flexible than this version of IWM because it can be used in conjunction with any normal action, while IWM can only be used in conjunction with an Attack action, besides being more flexible simply by nature of sorcerers having a wider range of magic schools and spell levels to choose from in the first place.

Sorcerers are defined by flexible application of their spells. Quickened Spell achieves this by allowing them to perform any normal action they like and still cast a spell, giving them great versatility.

Eldritch knights are defined by augmenting their martial prowess with magic. War Magic/Improved War Magic partially achieves this by allowing them to cast a spell and make an attack in the same turn, but it falls short as it conflicts with the multiple extra attacks gained by the base fighter, as you yourself pointed out. This version of WM/IWM merely reconciles that disconnect by letting those additional extra attacks back into the picture. It's not turning a spell into a bonus action, it's turning an attack into a magic attack. That's the whole point of the archetype.

As for narrative, because you're still a fighter at the core, not a wizard. You are more proficient with making weapon attacks then you are with casting spells. Extra attacks are achieved by becoming more skilled with weapons and the way you move during combat to the point that you can flow from one attack into the next riding off the momentum and direction of the last attack. Spellcasting does not have momentum. Each 1-action spell requires you to dedicate mental power to a singular, specific outcome, then mentally reset and start over to cast the next 1-action spell. Dedicated spellcasters may learn to quicken that process, allowing them to cast multiple 1-action spells in rapid succession, but you are not a dedicated caster. You are a fighter first and foremost, and you will always be faster with a blade than a spell.

Steampunkette
2017-03-11, 12:30 PM
I always felt that War Magic would have been better for Pactblade Warlocks than gaining Extra Attack from an invocation. That way they're more "Cast a simple spell and hit the guy!" rather than "Forgo magic to hit the guy!"

LeonBH
2017-03-11, 12:32 PM
I didn't just refer to IWM here though. I realized WM in this implementation allowed a better version of Quickened Spell from Level 7, so the comparison is valid from that level moving forward.

Anyway, I do like the idea of the EK maintaining their magic and martial prowess, and being able to shift back and forth between them seamlessly in combat. But, I still feel the narrative disconnect. Your explanation of why they can only pull off 1 spell per attack is valid, but it isn't the only valid explanation. I'm not saying you are claiming it is the only one -- but the fact someone could create another narrative to contradict yours makes it a not-globally acceptable "story". For example, it could also be said that gaining WM/IWM allows the EK to create momentum between spells, and so why wouldn't they be able to burn more attacks? And at level 20, as master fighters? And that dissonance makes it unsatisfying for me.

It also prevents someone from refluffing the character. I like Rogues who are not Rogues, for example -- they're doctors/veterinarians/zoologists who specialized in anatomy, who grew up in the streets but made his way into a good life learning medicine. They aren't criminals or urchins. And Sneak Attack shows their mastery of the anatomy of various creatures. Or a Barbarian who is civilized, but uses "Rage" as "Mental Fortitude" instead, and no longer tanks hits by being angry but by being agile and relentless and focused. What I'm trying to say is, by nailing down the fluff of the EK and tying it to the mechanics so specifically, we have disallowed people from using that particular implementation for their particular character concept, whose fluff may differ from ours.

This is my opinion, of course. Fluff is subjective, and this one doesn't feel right to me for the reasons I've given.

But to get back to the actual mechanics:


Quickened Spell is still much more flexible than this version of IWM because it can be used in conjunction with any normal action, while IWM can only be used in conjunction with an Attack action

True, but flexibility is not the same as power. WM/IWM in this implementation becomes better than Quickened Spell in terms of power. The EK can do Attack + Cantrip (WM/IWM) + Spell (Bonus Action). Meanwhile the Sorc can do Cantrip (Action) + Spell (Bonus Action). The specifics of which cantrip and which spell notwithstanding, the EK wins out in terms of breaking the action economy, which the Sorcerers were supposed to be great at via Metamagic.

And finally, the multiclass options this gives is quite interesting. EK7/Sorc3 (13 Cha) allows a lot of versatility as to what that bonus action spell is going to be. EK7/Pal2 (13 Cha) or EK7/Ranger2 (13 Wis) gives access to smite spells or Ranger spells which key off bonus actions. None of them are broken by any means, but the power curve is certainly steeper for these guys as opposed to their straight-classed EK9/Pal9/Ranger9 or straight-classed Sorc10.

So in conclusion: yes, Quickened Spell is more flexible in that the Sorcerer was a wider spell selection than the EK and it can be used with any spell they know. But WM/IWM still breaks the action economy in a way Quickened Spell can't, I think and that was supposed to be Quickened Spell's job.

Gr7mm Bobb
2017-03-11, 12:59 PM
Ok, found the RAW glaring holes in my rendition of WM and IWM. The cantrip to replace a swing is to only happen once per attack action. The 1st level spell or higher, was only to occur once per turn. Been adjusted in the relevant post. Not entirely sure it was done on purpose to make the fighter the only one who can cast 2 full spells in a turn whereas the sorcerer with the ability to Quicken spell gets to merely quicken a real spell and then cantrip. (my groups usually roll over that, seeing as how the sorcerer should be the class to be able to cast two full spells in a turn)

Will read more and give more specific responses. Sorry if it feels like I'm missing the point.

Wryte
2017-03-11, 02:42 PM
I didn't just refer to IWM here though. I realized WM in this implementation allowed a better version of Quickened Spell from Level 7, so the comparison is valid from that level moving forward.

Anyway, I do like the idea of the EK maintaining their magic and martial prowess, and being able to shift back and forth between them seamlessly in combat. But, I still feel the narrative disconnect. Your explanation of why they can only pull off 1 spell per attack is valid, but it isn't the only valid explanation. I'm not saying you are claiming it is the only one -- but the fact someone could create another narrative to contradict yours makes it a not-globally acceptable "story". For example, it could also be said that gaining WM/IWM allows the EK to create momentum between spells, and so why wouldn't they be able to burn more attacks? And at level 20, as master fighters? And that dissonance makes it unsatisfying for me.

It also prevents someone from refluffing the character. I like Rogues who are not Rogues, for example -- they're doctors/veterinarians/zoologists who specialized in anatomy, who grew up in the streets but made his way into a good life learning medicine. They aren't criminals or urchins. And Sneak Attack shows their mastery of the anatomy of various creatures. Or a Barbarian who is civilized, but uses "Rage" as "Mental Fortitude" instead, and no longer tanks hits by being angry but by being agile and relentless and focused. What I'm trying to say is, by nailing down the fluff of the EK and tying it to the mechanics so specifically, we have disallowed people from using that particular implementation for their particular character concept, whose fluff may differ from ours.

This is my opinion, of course. Fluff is subjective, and this one doesn't feel right to me for the reasons I've given.

I'm having a really hard time following your train of thought here. So you have no problem with reinterpreting the fluff for abilities like Rage to not actually act on rage, but you can't reinterpret fluff about the number of attacks-to-spells as anything but a narrowly-defined niche? Extra attacks don't even have fluff in the first place, and magic has fluff of its own for why it can't be cast in rapid succession through verbal and somatic components. I just don't see how this is such a breaking point.


True, but flexibility is not the same as power. WM/IWM in this implementation becomes better than Quickened Spell in terms of power. The EK can do Attack + Cantrip (WM/IWM) + Spell (Bonus Action). Meanwhile the Sorc can do Cantrip (Action) + Spell (Bonus Action). The specifics of which cantrip and which spell notwithstanding, the EK wins out in terms of breaking the action economy, which the Sorcerers were supposed to be great at via Metamagic.

Okay, first off, there are only 3 spells with a casting time of bonus action on the wizard spell list in the first place: Expeditious Retreat, Magic Weapon, and Misty Step, none of which are either abjuration or evocation. To have any of them in the first place would take up one of the EK's precious 4 spells that don't have to be from one of those two schools, and with the exception of maybe Misty Step, they are very lackluster choices for such limited spell options.

More importantly, I think you're giving Quickened Spell way, way more weight than it deserves. Quickened Spell is not the end-all-be-all of the sorcerer class. Heck, it's not even a feature in and of itself; it's an option on a list of metamagic feats that any individual sorcerer might not even choose to take. So yes, the EK can do something kind of similar to Quickened Spell, but with less flexibility and probably less power since sorcerers will be casting 9th levels spells by the time an EK is adding a single 4th level to their turn. Meanwhile, the sorcerer can also Twin Spell, Empower Spell, Extend Spell, etc., none of which the EK has anything remotely like. The sorcerer is in absolutely no danger whatsoever of losing their identity to the EK. If it were, then fighters should be complaining about being rendered totally obsolete by Blade Pact warlocks being able to pick up Thirsting Blade.


And finally, the multiclass options this gives is quite interesting. EK7/Sorc3 (13 Cha) allows a lot of versatility as to what that bonus action spell is going to be. EK7/Pal2 (13 Cha) or EK7/Ranger2 (13 Wis) gives access to smite spells or Ranger spells which key off bonus actions. None of them are broken by any means, but the power curve is certainly steeper for these guys as opposed to their straight-classed EK9/Pal9/Ranger9 or straight-classed Sorc10.

So in conclusion: yes, Quickened Spell is more flexible in that the Sorcerer was a wider spell selection than the EK and it can be used with any spell they know. But WM/IWM still breaks the action economy in a way Quickened Spell can't, I think and that was supposed to be Quickened Spell's job.

Your EK7/Sorc3 can make one attack, cast a cantrip, and then cast a 3rd level spell with Quickened Spell. They can do this a grand total of once before needing a long rest.
A level 7 battlemaster/Sorc3 can make a maneuver attack, another attack, and then cast a 3rd level spell with Quickened Spell. They can do this a grand total of once before needing a lost rest.
A level 7 champion/Sorc3 can make two attacks with increased chance to crit, and then cast a 3rd level spell with Quickened Spell. They can do this a grand total of once before needing a long rest.

Meanwhile, a level 10 sorcerer can cast a 5th level spell twice in one turn with Twinned Spell and still have a bonus action left over. They can do this twice before needing a long rest, or more times if they use lower level spells.

To say nothing of how an EK/Sorc is going to be spreading their ability score increases so thin they're only going to be half as effective at anything, given that being an EK already bumps a fighter's vital ability scores up from 2 to 3, and then being a sorcerer adds a 4th. It's a very unwieldy build just for the sake of cramming in one extra spell per long rest, and even if it outpaces other single-classed characters at that level, it will fall behind very quickly after that.

LeonBH
2017-03-11, 11:57 PM
Wryte, I think you are going to write off anything I say. So I'll end our conversation here, and agree to disagree. Your tone is very argumentative and I am not here to argue. If you do not want to see and acknowledge that there is reason for concern in this implementation of WM/IWM, that is entirely yours. I am not saying the abilities suck or are broken. As a DM, nothing is ever broken for me. But I am pointing out they are imperfect. That is all, good day to you.

Gr7mm Bobb, it's alright. I doubt it was with any intention of overpowering the features. Myself, I like making WM be the original one I posted. It's IWM that I feel unsatisfied about. So many other factors to consider when making a capstone ability. :)

Wryte
2017-03-12, 02:27 AM
Wryte, I think you are going to write off anything I say. So I'll end our conversation here, and agree to disagree. Your tone is very argumentative and I am not here to argue. If you do not want to see and acknowledge that there is reason for concern in this implementation of WM/IWM, that is entirely yours. I am not saying the abilities suck or are broken. As a DM, nothing is ever broken for me. But I am pointing out they are imperfect. That is all, good day to you.

I apologize if that's how I'm coming across. It wasn't my intent. I'm genuinely not following your train of reasoning about the version of IWM I proposed infringing on sorcerers' class identity. You keep coming back to Quickened Spell, but that's just one optional feature of the sorcerer that IWM is vaguely similar to and much more limited than in both usability and power output. I think you're underestimating the role of mechanical differences in distinguishing similar class features from one another, unless there's something else here I'm just not getting.

You also said you thought the fluff I provided for the mechanics of my IWM was valid, but then rejected it because someone could invent a different fluff that would require different mechanics. That leaves me completely confused. If the alternate fluff doesn't fit the mechanics, isn't that a failing of the alternate fluff and not the mechanic? Especially when the inability to cast multiple spells in a turn is part of the core spellcasting rules that IWM merely restates, and not a unique restriction on the feature?

On one hand you seem to be saying that IWM is too much like Quickened Spell because it lets you cast a spell in addition to doing something else on your turn, but then on the other hand it seems like you're saying IWM should be more like Quickened Spell because someone could potentially write fluff that contradicts both the mechanical wording of the feature, and the core spellcasting rules. I'm totally lost here. Am I reading something wrong? It feels like you're putting your focus disproportionately behind the concept of the feature without taking the nuts and bolts into full account.

I'm not ignoring concerns about the version of IWM I proposed out of hand. I'm trying to understand the concerns you're raising, but as of yet I'm either not understanding your arguments or not seeing much evidence for them.